C.R.P.M.P.No.1321/2007 is filed to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court in C.R.P.M.P.No.8792/2006 in C.R.P.No.6416/2006 dt.19-12-2006 and pass such other suitable orders. When the vacate application came up for hearing, the Counsel representing the parties made a request for the final disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and made elaborate submissions. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition itself is being disposed of finally.

2. This Court on 19-12-2006 while admitting the Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P.M.P.No.8792/2006 made the following Order:-

“Before receiving a document as a secondary evidence, the Court is under obligation to satisfy itself as to whether the steps contemplated under Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act are complied with, and from a perusal of the order under revision, it is not prima facie evident that such an exercise was undertaken. Further, the payment of stamp duty must precede the admission of the document. The matter needs to be examined. There shall be interim stay as prayed for, to be in force, for a period of six weeks.

Post after four weeks.”

Subsequent thereto, on 25-1-2007 the interim order already granted was extended until further orders. An application to vacate the interim stay granted had been filed, as already aforesaid.

3. Sri Ch. Pushyam Kiran, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the Order under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition and would maintain that the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, erred in allowing the Xerox copy of the alleged lease deed be received as secondary evidence subject to the condition of the payment of stamp duty and penalty. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the alleged lease deed was not even pleaded in the plaint. The Counsel also incidentally had drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 17 and 49 of the Indian Registration Act and also the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and would maintain that in the light of the decided cases, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, Sri S.R. Sanku, the learned Counsel representing the respondent in Civil Revision Petition, would maintain that as per the instructions received, the stamp duty and penalty already had been decided by impounding the document and in a way the present Civil Revision Petition became infructuous. The learned Counsel also would maintain that it is not as though on the strength of this document alone, the rights of the parties are going to be decided and in the light of the same, and also in the light of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Xerox copy of the document can be received as secondary evidence, the impugned order cannot be found fault. The learned Counsel also would maintain that even otherwise this document can be tentatively marked at present leaving all questions open to be decided at the appropriate stage i.e., final disposal of the suit. The learned Counsel placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

5. Heard the Counsel.

6. The Civil Revision Petition is filed as against an order dt.13-11-2006 made in O.S.No.216/2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry while deciding the admissibility of Xerox copy of unregistered lease deed dt.21-2-95, came to the conclusion that the secondary evidence be received subject to the condition of the payment of stamp duty and penalty and the learned Judge also further observed that for payment of stamp duty and penalty if any and to mark the said document, the matter be posted to 21-11-2006.

7. The suit is for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from committing acts of waste or dealing with the plaint schedule premises in any manner prejudicial or detrimental to the interest of